Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 1:53*am, 328X1 wrote:
Art Unwin;672460 Wrote:



On Apr 10, 9:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:-
On Apr 10, 8:45*pm, Tom Ring wrote:

-
Art Unwin wrote:-
--
The posting is about dishes not antennas. I have not read about a
dish
that does not emit signals to the rear. Now I have built one and
find
to my surprize that it does accept signals from the rear ! All very
simple, the radiator is resting at the bottom of a cone and the top
of
the radiator does not stick out beyond the reflector. Since you do
not--
-
Well, to start with Art, a cone reflector doesn't meet the definition
of
a dish antenna.-
-
I'm sorry, but they just aren't the same thing.-
-
I surprizzzed you missed the difference.-
-
tom
K0TAR-

Tom
I asked the question as I am not personly knowledgable about dish
style reflectors.
I do read a lot and I read a paper once where it was found that a
cone
shaped reflector produced increased gain when used with a helix
antenna, so I made one to try it out. Personaly I see it more as a
horn and not as a dish with a radiator at a phase control difference
from the reflector? Either way I do not understand how that I can
hear
signals to the rear if the reflector envelope encloses the radiator
thus the question. Note that a helix radiates differently from the
normal dish radiator such that phasing does not enter the design
which
is why you see planar dishes or "cups".
Thus questions with respect to reflector diameter are not
pertinentwhen the radiator is enclosed.-

Guys
In the absence of a explanation I will provide a possible alternative.
Maxwell added a specific portion to his mathematical laws that refer
to mass and the speed of light thus verifying the existance of
particles. This addition brought statics laws into the radiation
sphere. Rutherford of the UK ( Manchester)showed that particles could
piece a foil of gold because of the relative size of the particle with
respect to the latice make up of the foil when viewed head on. Thus in
the same way a particle or mass ejected at the speed of light from a
radiator could possibly pierce a reflector when met head on.
If so this would explain the rear signals. In the case of a radiator
that is not enclosed by the envelope of a reflector head on
deflection/
interaction is quite possible and well understood and there are
designs to avoid it. With respect to dish edges one can see in the
radio handbook what happens to a signal grazing a sharp edge, but that
seems hard to swallow when hams cling to the idea of radio "waves"
when their actions has not been satisfactorily explained with respect
to radiation by physicists.
I suggest that you all pick up the Gaussian equations and add the
presence of a time varying field such that it is mathematically the
same as one of Maxwell's laws ie
look for mass and light speed signatures. We are past the times when
one could suppress ideas such as the World is not flat. When you
finally arrive at the point of understanding of Maxwell you only then
gain an understanding of radiation. With the denial of this
mathematical evidence by all you have zero understanding of radiation
and therefore redundant.
Bye

You can argue till you're blue in the face, but in the 50+ years in the
radio electronics field, both in civilian and military occupations, I
have yet to see a single 'particle' [other than dust, perhaps] on any
of the many oscilloscopes I've ever used. Conversely I seen countless
'waves'. * I'll stick with the time tested term of RADIO WAVES.

--
328X1

What others have concluded by guessing is not a concern of mine.
Hams with respect to antennas always call for the supporting math as
they decry amateur measurements. The sad thing is that hams are not
familiar with mathematics.
It is quite clear that by adding a time varying field to the law of
statics it becomes proof of the validity of Maxwell'/s lawsand vica
versa. Thus the presence of particles is also verufied.
Maxwell laws are based solely on distributed loads where lumped loads
are completely avoided yet lumped loads generate electromagnetic
fields. What is the explanation of this when Maxwells laws designate
that which is required for maximum efficiency? To look like a wave is
inmaterial since a particle at rest on a wave only changes amplitude,
it does not follow the movement of water.
We then have the knowledge that the sun provides a stream of particles
which arrive on Earth, billions of them and of the smallest size of
particle known by man and most hams look to the Sun for predictions of
dx activity. Why is this so? Maxwells law includes the speed of light
with the inclusio,n of mass in his equations so how is this portion of
mathematics included in planar forms that are formed around inductive
coupling? We know that the weak force is stronger than gravity and is
part of Maxwell's laws the same as we know that gravity does not
overcome communication,
another recognition of particles as is the application of rotation to
particles to maintain straight line projection and where this specific
action is part and parcel of Maxwell's laws. Why do you all close your
eyes to these known facts? Books of the present day are for making
money not the disemination of facts. White papers are accepted if they
have enought references to other publishings so dissemination of the
truth is obviously not profitable, but plagarism is. And it all starts
with the mathematical phenomina where all mathematics of the masters
are used to provide the validity of his laws. Like other law's Gauss's
law of Statics is also a proof of the validity of Maxwell's laws with
respect to radiation and is accepted via mathematics protocol.
What is happening here is the rejection of the mathematical proof by
radio hams, for if the validity is established change obviously occurs
and change is seen as undesirable, thus the burial of heads in the
sand. Yes, this time we will succeed in
our position it determining that the World is flat by denying the
mathematics! All of this group is on record of rejecting the
mathematics shown by Maxwell and Gauss by refusing to address it such
that validity is denied and change does not come about.

Dish reflector
 

"Art Unwin" wrote:

What others have concluded by guessing is not a concern of mine.
Hams with respect to antennas always call for the supporting math as
they decry amateur measurements. The sad thing is that hams are not
familiar with mathematics.
It is quite clear that by adding a time varying field to the law of
statics it becomes proof of the validity of Maxwell'/s lawsand vica
versa. Thus the presence of particles is also verufied.
Maxwell laws are based solely on distributed loads where lumped loads
are completely avoided yet lumped loads generate electromagnetic
fields. What is the explanation of this when Maxwells laws designate
that which is required for maximum efficiency? To look like a wave is
inmaterial since a particle at rest on a wave only changes amplitude,
it does not follow the movement of water.
We then have the knowledge that the sun provides a stream of particles
which arrive on Earth, billions of them and of the smallest size of
particle known by man and most hams look to the Sun for predictions of
dx activity. Why is this so? Maxwells law includes the speed of light
with the inclusio,n of mass in his equations so how is this portion of
mathematics included in planar forms that are formed around inductive
coupling? We know that the weak force is stronger than gravity and is
part of Maxwell's laws the same as we know that gravity does not
overcome communication,
another recognition of particles as is the application of rotation to
particles to maintain straight line projection and where this specific
action is part and parcel of Maxwell's laws. Why do you all close your
eyes to these known facts? Books of the present day are for making
money not the disemination of facts. White papers are accepted if they
have enought references to other publishings so dissemination of the
truth is obviously not profitable, but plagarism is. And it all starts
with the mathematical phenomina where all mathematics of the masters
are used to provide the validity of his laws. Like other law's Gauss's
law of Statics is also a proof of the validity of Maxwell's laws with
respect to radiation and is accepted via mathematics protocol.
What is happening here is the rejection of the mathematical proof by
radio hams, for if the validity is established change obviously occurs
and change is seen as undesirable, thus the burial of heads in the
sand. Yes, this time we will succeed in
our position it determining that the World is flat by denying the
mathematics! All of this group is on record of rejecting the
mathematics shown by Maxwell and Gauss by refusing to address it such
that validity is denied and change does not come about.

Art,Art,Art..... you are blithering again!

Mike W5CHR
Memphis

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 3:21*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't see Art's postings except as they're quoted by others. But from
what I'm seeing here, it looks like he's done a great experiment which
graphically shows that radio waves don't act like particles. More
experiments along this line weren't really necessary, since it's been
known at least since Hertz's experiments in the 19th century. And
anyone who took high school physics and watched the ripples in the
ripple tank should be able to immediately predict what Art is
describing. But I suppose the experiment and its results might prove
enlightening for those readers who didn't take high school physics and
who are nearly completely unacquainted with electromagnetics.

Sorry, Roy, that experiment won't be possible. The bathtub is
permanently occupied by the wannabee Archimedes.

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK

Ian
Both you and Roy project to the World that you are both experts with
respect to radiation. You write articles and both have had the
position of magazine advisors so I can assume that you feel you have a
firm grasp in physics or a good collection of books that you can
resort to for answers. The fact that both of you deny the mathematics
given by Gauyss and Maxwell is a constant surprise to me even tho a
mathematics person from MIT showed all the validity Of what I have
stated. Physics books revolve around Maxwell's laws and show many
instances where other laws
contribute to providing validity his and Newton's laws. Now I provide
another instance
where Gauss also provide validity to Maxwell's laws which have been
confirmed by independent sources. Yet Richard with a major in English
decided the mathematics supplied is in error and both of you, with the
masses, followed in lockstep yet both of you have degrees in the
subject at hand! Why is it that nobody with experience in physics has
come forward to prove me wrong ? Why do both of you refuse to provide
supporting evidence? Yes, you can come forward to discuss SWR and
similar things
yet your absence in not proving me in error is some what amasing. Both
of you tell the group why you cannot substantiate the mathematics
supplied with respect to radiation.If your mathematics or physics are
not up to it why not quote independent sources? Your stances are very
similar to when you worked with magazines that fooled the world with
respect to antenna gain on behalf of gain to manufactures.
This newsgroup is for the edification and advancement of antenna
knowledge to hams and yet both of you are instrumental in hiding the
truth and thus have descended to Richard's level in the destruction
of advancement in favour of projecting derision in place of knowledge.
Years ago Roy stated he would go to the ends of the Earth to destroy
old housewives tails to clarify the science of radio communication but
for some reason he cannot, or will not, prove this to be one of the
same.
For the others, consult your teachers or professors or others skilled
in the art and ask them the one simple question. Does the addition of
a time varying field to the arbritary border of Gauss which contain
static particles in equilibrium equal to and verify the laws
established by Maxwell? Simple straight forward question which is
denied by this group without possesion of the required facts that
establishes their position.

Dish reflector
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't see Art's postings except as they're quoted by others. But from
what I'm seeing here, it looks like he's done a great experiment which
graphically shows that radio waves don't act like particles. More
experiments along this line weren't really necessary, since it's been
known at least since Hertz's experiments in the 19th century. And anyone
who took high school physics and watched the ripples in the ripple tank
should be able to immediately predict what Art is describing. But I
suppose the experiment and its results might prove enlightening for
those readers who didn't take high school physics and who are nearly
completely unacquainted with electromagnetics.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Dish reflector
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.

If one expects a wave, one will measure a wave.
If one expects a particle, one will measure a particle.
Do human expectations dictate reality or vice versa?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 11:33*am, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't see Art's postings except as they're quoted by others. But from
what I'm seeing here, it looks like he's done a great experiment which
graphically shows that radio waves don't act like particles. More
experiments along this line weren't really necessary, since it's been
known at least since Hertz's experiments in the 19th century. And anyone
who took high school physics and watched the ripples in the ripple tank
should be able to immediately predict what Art is describing. But I
suppose the experiment and its results might prove enlightening for
those readers who didn't take high school physics and who are nearly
completely unacquainted with electromagnetics.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom
If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 11:46*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.

If one expects a wave, one will measure a wave.
If one expects a particle, one will measure a particle.
Do human expectations dictate reality or vice versa?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

You are absolutely correct. Time and modern instruments has proved it
so.
Now we have to retrain the thinking of old people that resist change.
But all we have at hand are people that are old and unskilled in the
arts.

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 11:46*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.

If one expects a wave, one will measure a wave.
If one expects a particle, one will measure a particle.
Do human expectations dictate reality or vice versa?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, I posted this same stuff on the qrz antenna forum which is
followed by the majority of hams around the World. It is now close to
the 4000 hits mark , I find it interesting the difference in thinking
between the different news groups where only a few can manipulate the
whole to attack.

Dish reflector
 

Art Unwin wrote:
You are absolutely correct.

Art, all you have to do is convince people to change
their expectations and their outcomes will change. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dish reflector
 

Art Unwin wrote:
I find it interesting the difference in thinking
between the different news groups where only a few can manipulate the
whole to attack.

I cannot beat Will Roger's advice: "Be sure you are
right, and then go on ahead."

For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
which I have actually measured on the bench.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dish reflector
 

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

It is all in connecting the dots.

If what above from one author only is beyond comprehension because of
language, it isn't Shakespeare's fault. If it is not logical, it is
not Gauss' fault. If it doesn't work, it isn't Newton's fault. If it
doesn't make sense, it isn't Einstein's fault.

If there is a problem, note only the author of both statements (who
blames Shakespeare, Gauss, Newton, Einstein - and is Galileo miffed,
standing behind the curtain?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 1:13*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

It is all in connecting the dots. *

If what above from one author only is beyond comprehension because of
language, it isn't Shakespeare's fault. *If it is not logical, it is
not Gauss' fault. *If it doesn't work, it isn't Newton's fault. *If it
doesn't make sense, it isn't Einstein's fault.

If there is a problem, note only the author of both statements (who
blames Shakespeare, Gauss, Newton, Einstein - and is Galileo miffed,
standing behind the curtain?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Don't send 73s to me!
I am married with children and have no inclination to
have people such as you in my friendship group. I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction. You are a troubled man with
endless posts that contain nothing about antennas and only reveal
yourself to others like you exactly who you are, as well as your
needs. Majoring in the english language by suplimentation of the years
spent at sea does nothing to enhance your knowledge of physics. You
are what you appear to be, a fraud that is also wired different from
others in search in those of your own kind that are conditioned to
attack the norm. I suggest you go back to live with your shipmates
again where you were happy and desired.

Dish reflector
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.

the simplest form to put in words is: the divergence of E is proportional
to the charge density. the constant of proportionality depends on the units
chosen of course. This is exactly the form used in Maxwell's equations for
time varying fields.

Dish reflector
 

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction.

Yes Arthru,

We know you are gay-baiting with these sly comments. Testosterone
deficiency seems to motivate your hostility when you run out of
technical discussion. It so closely attends failure, confusion, and
wandering thoughts (which never seem to stray from sex, however).
From the generous sub-text of these interests foremost in your mind, I
should certainly hesitate to offer

88's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC ;-)

OR

You could simply observe your own "differently wired" statements:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Which of these "wires" conducts?

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 1:52*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.

the simplest form to put in words is: *the divergence of E is proportional
to the charge density. *the constant of proportionality depends on the units
chosen of course. *This is exactly the form used in Maxwell's equations for
time varying fields.

Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.
All these years of denial without supporting evidence. You couldn't
provide such to
the guy( A doctorate no less) from MIT to convince him he was wrong
either.
David you over estimate your abilities. Richard Harrison who spent his
life with
Radio America finally went back to the books and then apologised for
backing your position because his books backed my position . You
graduated many many years ago and failed to keep up. Now science has
overtaken you. Remember your comment?
Statics has nothing to do with with radiation.
Proof given, nothing other than you said so. And you chose to
follow the wierdo Richard in the attack. And Roy and others followed
in line like lemons. Perhaps you and I should have a talk on top band
where you can verbally deny that I have a rotatable antenna to your
cohorts and where they in the same tone demand more information or
proof.

Dish reflector
 

Art Unwin wrote:


I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, but
here goes Anything to make you happy, this should be interesting how
you use these answers with respect to the posted question

1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable

2 2 metres

3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
helix antenna.

At least to the best of my knowledge which is why I posed the question
Hopefully we will all stay on subject and not get side tracked. I will
leave it to others to respond to Richard when they determine what he
is talking about.


While this provide some details regarding your antenna, it is not sufficient
for me to visualize it.

If one can't visualize what you are talking about, getting help with your
questions will be difficult.

You could try a simple experiment: Remove the active part of your antenna
and replace it with a dummy load. Leave the reflector/dish/whatever in
place. If you still pick up signals, then the antenna itself may not be the
problem.

By 'active part', I mean the helix antenna.

You have a web site, a link to a picture would help me understand what you
are doing.

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 2:00*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction.

Yes Arthru,

We know you are gay-baiting with these sly comments. *Testosterone
deficiency seems to motivate your hostility when you run out of
technical discussion. *It so closely attends failure, confusion, and
wandering thoughts (which never seem to stray from sex, however).
From the generous sub-text of these interests foremost in your mind, I
should certainly hesitate to offer

88's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC * *;-)

OR

You could simply observe your own "differently wired" statements:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Which of these "wires" conducts?

You have never debated ! You have only attacked others. If you kept to
antennas
how you are wired would not have mattered as it goes along with the
title of this newsgroup. You could have debated the good Dr from MIT
with respect to mathematics but you chose to insult.He with a
doctorate being denigrated by an english major! No wonder the
technically advantaged don't stay long on this newsgroup
Why not have a debate with Cecil where you can supply facts instead
of attacks in a debate about phase changes with the facts you learned
from Shakesphere, I am sure you learned a lot dressed in those log
legged mesh pants as
you prance around the stage. I thought you were proud of what you are.

Dish reflector
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, "Dave" wrote:
Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.

unfortunately this media restricts us to words, but any phd worth his salt
could reconstruct the equation in symbols from my description. does: "del
dot E = rho" make it any clearer? if not, look up page 33 of the 2nd
edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics. and then compare that with
the statement of maxwell's equations on page 2.

Dish reflector
 

"joe" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:


I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, but
here goes Anything to make you happy, this should be interesting how
you use these answers with respect to the posted question

1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable

2 2 metres

3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
helix antenna.

At least to the best of my knowledge which is why I posed the question
Hopefully we will all stay on subject and not get side tracked. I will
leave it to others to respond to Richard when they determine what he
is talking about.


While this provide some details regarding your antenna, it is not
sufficient
for me to visualize it.

take an aluminum foil dunce cap, wide a curly pigs tail helix inside of it
and feed it with coax. most likely he attached the shield to the foil and
the center conductor to the helix, so all he has is an ugly dipole all
folded up on itself at hf. he would be better off putting the dunce cap
over his head to prevent damage from the brain probes.

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 2:48*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, but
here goes Anything to make you happy, this should be interesting how
you use these answers with respect to the posted question

1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable

2 2 metres

3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
helix antenna.

At least to the best of my knowledge which is why I posed the question
Hopefully we will all stay on subject and not get side tracked. I will
leave it to others to respond to Richard when they determine what he
is talking about.

While this provide some details regarding your antenna, it is not sufficient
for me to visualize it.

If one can't visualize what you are talking about, getting help with your
questions will be difficult.

You could try a simple experiment: Remove the active part of your antenna
and replace it with a dummy load. Leave the reflector/dish/whatever in
place. If you still pick up signals, then the antenna itself may not be the
problem.

By 'active part', I mean the helix antenna.

You have a web site, a link to a picture would help me understand what you
are doing.

Joe
This debate has been going on for years. It is all in the archives. I
am not interested
in hearing the cacophony of sound all over again every time a newcomer
comes along
Believe it or not this thread started with a question and you may have
read the responses. You may not be different from the others and time
would be wasted again.
Read the archives for yourself instead of asking favours of me, it is
all printed in the archives and it goes back half a dozen years or
more. If you are a qualified engineer like me it will take only a
short time to get to the gist of the material and possibly fall in
place with your support. But I will not hold my breath. Note Both
previous advisors
of Radcom amateur radio magazine in the UK and also Roy formerly of
QST have formally debunked my position in public tho neither has
provided proof so you might want to use your time else where
Or maybe hook up with Richard. wink wink !! Either way I am readying
to get out of here again these guys are ruthless.
Nothing personal intended

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 2:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, "Dave" wrote:

Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.

unfortunately this media restricts us to words, but any phd worth his salt
could reconstruct the equation in symbols from my description. *does: *"del
dot E = rho" *make it any clearer? *if not, look up page 33 of the 2nd
edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics. *and then compare that with
the statement of maxwell's equations on page 2.

David look up Newtons laws and make note of the mathematics that
dictate the presence of a displacement current is used to impact with
mass at the speed of light.
Find out why Maxwell was impelled to insert it into his formue when he
could not identify or verify the legitimacy of such an insertion. He
was a mathematicion who followed the laws of mathematic which also
follows the laws of Newton.
To check his formula legitimacy he had to place his formula to one
side of the equal sign and prove that the equation equated to zero
( from the universal understanding of
cosmos equilibrium) He found that his formula did not equal zero ! So
what could he do for it to make it zero as required? He decided to
cancel out what metrics that he could and then added the extra
required metrics that would cancel out the remaining metrics. Yup the
final equation equaled zero where his insertion predicted the presence
of the weak force acting on a mass or particle.
It was years before Foucault identified what Maxwell had added and
Einstein never identified the weak force metrics that Maxwell placed
right in front of him.
Now we have antenna computer programs that are based on Maxwells laws
that include displacement current where they are programmed to change
what has been inserted to conform with Maxwells laws(optimisation
programs) and not the pre conceived planar design.
And guess what? They do reject pre conceived ideas such as the Yagi
and other planar designs that depend solely of intermagnetic coupling
and place designs that
are in agreement with Maxwell's laws which include the presence of
particlesfor maximum efficiency of radiation.
Now since the laws of Maxwell drops firmly on the side of particles
instead of waves the amateur fraternity feel compelled to discredit
computer programs such that there position is maintained and change is
not required.
And the World continues to waddle in the garbage by ignoring the
accompanying smell. My oh my.
Qudoes to this newsgroup for leading the charge against change
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 11, 11:57*am, Art Unwin wrote:

But all we have at hand are people that are old and unskilled in the
arts.

Hummmm.... :/ 2009-1934= old fart... Chortle..

Dish reflector
 

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
....

You have never debated !

That is for the hooded monks who utter prayers as they beat religion
into those who are not converted.

You could have debated the good Dr from MIT
with respect to mathematics but you chose to insult.He with a
doctorate being denigrated by an english major!

You make him sound like a milk-sop whimpering in the street. (For all
your breast-beating tears for his plight, can't you at least remember
his name?) According to you, your leviathan of intellect whose shadow
you stand in has been trounced by a swish who studied English! I like
how you mince through your charges of brutality to then daintily wedge
the gay-baiting into your invective:
I am sure you learned a lot dressed in those log
legged mesh pants as
you prance around the stage. I thought you were proud of what you are.
You really have an over-active imagination that keeps returning to
these curious fantasies. You spend more effort pruning these little
bouquets than actually staying on topic. What you choose to focus on
is entirely up to you. Let's see how you handle:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
Can you respond to the technical content of its conflict with your
next statement:
wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

I don't mind if you abandon your own claims to their poverty, no one
else will hug these destitute urchins either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dish reflector
 

wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 11:57 am, Art Unwin wrote:

But all we have at hand are people that are old and unskilled in the
arts.
Hummmm.... :/ 2009-1934= old fart... Chortle..

and self-confessed unskilled.

Dish reflector
 

*** Exordium ***
My dear Artifice, knowing your attachment to the practices of time out
of mind as indulged by the hooded monks whipping religion into their
young charges; I took a special effort to prepare you a debate with it
demarked by the classic degrees that you will note in *** stars ***

*** accumulatio ***
I have no experience with dishes
This is our first clue which you then elaborate with:
Rutherford of the UK ( Manchester)showed that particles could
piece a foil of gold
Your dish is of inferior craftmanship in that it is certainly not
gold:
The reflector is made from 1/2" mesh steel with an aluminum foil liner

*** Narratio ***
One would note that there is a world of antennas made with neither
gold, nor aluminum (isn't it aluminium?) foil, but thinner metal foil
on mylar or plastic. They work fine and do not suffer failure such as
yours. It would seem they are Rutherford partical resistant and do
not conform to your theory of a weekend farce. This is no surprise as
Margaret Rutherford was an English actress who played in the
flamboyant Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest." Your
work, as disappointing as it is does qualify as being earnest.

*** Divisio ***
However, one must observe the cautionary tale that inhabits that more
important (than your) work of Wilde's:

Jack - My dear Algy, you talk exactly as if you were a dentist.
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression.

One could insert "antenna designer" for "dentist" to the same effect.
As for your fond attachment to Margaret Rutherford, let us take a leaf
from the script where she appears in full character of Miss prism:

Lady Bracknell - Is this Miss prism a female of repellent aspect,
remotely connected with education? It contained the manuscript of
a three-volume novel of more than usually revolting
sentimentality.

Miss prism - [grows pale and quails. She looks anxiously round as if
desirous to escape.]

*** Confirmatio ***
Let's see, Oscar Wilde wrote this at the end of the 19th century,
where much of your reading has been stalled in arrested development.
There is a reference to large written works (three volumes). The
implication being offered is such rambling work can be easily summed
up as the usually revolting sentimentality. And it is all brought
together in the character played by Margaret Rutherford. It shouldn't
take a leap of intelligence to note her character name of prism, and
the work done with prisms by Newton.

*** Peroratio ***
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Lady Bracknell - This noise is extremely unpleasant.
It sounds as if he was having an argument.
I dislike arguments of any kind.
They are always vulgar, and often convincing.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 12, 3:09*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
*** Exordium ***
My dear Artifice, knowing your attachment to the practices of time out
of mind as indulged by the hooded monks whipping religion into their
young charges; I took a special effort to prepare you a debate with it
demarked by the classic degrees that you will note in *** stars ***

*** accumulatio ***I have no experience with dishes

This is our first clue which you then elaborate with:Rutherford of the UK ( Manchester)showed that particles could
piece a foil of gold

Your dish is of inferior craftmanship in that it is certainly not
gold:

The reflector is made from 1/2" mesh steel with an aluminum foil liner

*** Narratio ***
One would note that there is a world of antennas made with neither
gold, nor aluminum (isn't it aluminium?) foil, but thinner metal foil
on mylar or plastic. *They work fine and do not suffer failure such as
yours. *It would seem they are Rutherford partical resistant and do
not conform to your theory of a weekend farce. *This is no surprise as
Margaret Rutherford was an English actress who played in the
flamboyant Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest." *Your
work, as disappointing as it is does qualify as being earnest.

*** Divisio ***
However, one must observe the cautionary tale that inhabits that more
important (than your) work of Wilde's:

Jack - My dear Algy, you talk exactly as if you were a dentist.
* * * * It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
* * * * It produces a false impression.

One could insert "antenna designer" for "dentist" to the same effect.
As for your fond attachment to Margaret Rutherford, let us take a leaf
from the script where she appears in full character of Miss prism:

Lady Bracknell - Is this Miss prism a female of repellent aspect,
* * * * remotely connected with education? *It contained the manuscript of
a three-volume novel of more than usually revolting
* * * * sentimentality.

Miss prism - [grows pale and quails. She looks anxiously round as if
* * * * desirous to escape.]

*** Confirmatio ***
Let's see, Oscar Wilde wrote this at the end of the 19th century,
where much of your reading has been stalled in arrested development.
There is a reference to large written works (three volumes). *The
implication being offered is such rambling work can be easily summed
up as the usually revolting sentimentality. *And it is all brought
together in the character played by Margaret Rutherford. *It shouldn't
take a leap of intelligence to note her character name of prism, and
the work done with prisms by Newton.

*** Peroratio ***

I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Lady Bracknell - This noise is extremely unpleasant.
* * * * It sounds as if he was having an argument.
* * * * I dislike arguments of any kind.
* * * * They are always vulgar, and often convincing.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

This thread is hilarious ROTFLAMO . I just cant figure who is the
comic and whio is the straight man.

Welcome back Art, You may know nothing of antennas but you are
certainly the master of tolls.


Jimmie

Dish reflector
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I find it interesting the difference in thinking
between the different news groups where only a few can manipulate the
whole to attack.

I cannot beat Will Roger's advice: "Be sure you are
right, and then go on ahead."

For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
which I have actually measured on the bench.

A PT Barnum quote would have more apropos. So is your delay measurement
shown on your web page?

ac6xg

Dish reflector
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
which I have actually measured on the bench.

A PT Barnum quote would have more apropos. So is your delay measurement
shown on your web page?

I wrote the web page before I made the measurement
but I reported the measurement on this newsgroup
about two years ago.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dish reflector
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
which I have actually measured on the bench.

A PT Barnum quote would have more apropos. So is your delay
measurement shown on your web page?

I wrote the web page before I made the measurement
but I reported the measurement on this newsgroup
about two years ago.

Ah. So you didn't actually follow Will Rogers advice to:
"Be sure you are right, and then go on ahead."

But we already knew that. :-)

ac6xg

Dish reflector
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Ah. So you didn't actually follow Will Rogers advice to:
"Be sure you are right, and then go on ahead."

I was sure I was right and then made the measurements
that proved it. The established laws of physics don't
require additional measurements. Have you proved
Maxwell's equations lately?

When one needs to delay a signal, one can install a
coil to accomplish that need. Why is it so hard to
accept that coils cause delays?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 14, 2:31*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Ah. *So you didn't actually follow Will Rogers advice to:
"Be sure you are right, and then go on ahead."

I was sure I was right and then made the measurements
that proved it. The established laws of physics don't
require additional measurements. Have you proved
Maxwell's equations lately?

When one needs to delay a signal, one can install a
coil to accomplish that need. Why is it so hard to
accept that coils cause delays?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

What would be the difference in the amount of time it takes a pulse to
travel from feedpoint and be reflected back to the feed point
comparing a 1/4 wl 40 meter antenna to a 15ft loaded antenna center
loaded to resonate at 40 meters?

Jimmie

Dish reflector
 

JIMMIE wrote:
On Apr 14, 2:31 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Ah. So you didn't actually follow Will Rogers advice to:
"Be sure you are right, and then go on ahead."
I was sure I was right and then made the measurements
that proved it. The established laws of physics don't
require additional measurements. Have you proved
Maxwell's equations lately?

When one needs to delay a signal, one can install a
coil to accomplish that need. Why is it so hard to
accept that coils cause delays?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

What would be the difference in the amount of time it takes a pulse to
travel from feedpoint and be reflected back to the feed point
comparing a 1/4 wl 40 meter antenna to a 15ft loaded antenna center
loaded to resonate at 40 meters?

Jimmie

Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
actually measured it to be?

73, ac6xg

Dish reflector
 

On Apr 14, 3:29*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
JIMMIE wrote:
On Apr 14, 2:31 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Ah. *So you didn't actually follow Will Rogers advice to:
"Be sure you are right, and then go on ahead."
I was sure I was right and then made the measurements
that proved it. The established laws of physics don't
require additional measurements. Have you proved
Maxwell's equations lately?

When one needs to delay a signal, one can install a
coil to accomplish that need. Why is it so hard to
accept that coils cause delays?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

What would be the difference in the amount of time it takes a pulse to
travel from feedpoint and be reflected back to the feed point
comparing a 1/4 wl 40 meter antenna to a 15ft loaded antenna center
loaded to resonate at 40 meters?

Jimmie

Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
actually measured it to be?

73, ac6xg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would like to hear anyones opinion on it.

Jimmie

Dish reflector
 

JIMMIE wrote:
What would be the difference in the amount of time it takes a pulse to
travel from feedpoint and be reflected back to the feed point
comparing a 1/4 wl 40 meter antenna to a 15ft loaded antenna center
loaded to resonate at 40 meters?

Please don't confuse delay (amount of time) with the
total phase shift. There is a point in a loading coil
antenna where the phase shift is instantaneous.

The total phase shift is *exactly* the same assuming
both antennas are resonant on 40m. How could it possibly
be otherwise?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dish reflector
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
actually measured it to be?

If you had any idea of what you were talking about,
you would know that the total phase shift is unrelated
to the total delay. Some incremental phase shifts are
related to the velocity factor. Some incremental phase
shifts are instantaneous. If you don't already know
that, you don't know how to use a Smith Chart.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dish reflector
 

JIMMIE wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:29 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
actually measured it to be?

I would like to hear anyones opinion on it. Jimmie

Does anyone besides me suspect that JIMMIE talking
to Jim is the same person?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dish reflector
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
actually measured it to be?

If you had any idea of what you were talking about,
you would know that the total phase shift is unrelated
to the total delay.

But you're doing all the talking, Cecil - providing profound and
knowledgeable insights as in the above observation that phase shift and
delay are unrelated.

ac6xg

Dish reflector
 

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:52:16 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
actually measured it to be?

If you had any idea of what you were talking about,
you would know that the total phase shift is unrelated
to the total delay.

But you're doing all the talking, Cecil - providing profound and
knowledgeable insights as in the above observation that phase shift and
delay are unrelated.

Exceedingly profound. Is there a third, unpublished, cosine parameter
(Suppressed Hypothetical Interval Term) for delay that is not phase
nor position? This must be another one of Cecil's "you are right, but
you are wrong about what you thought you were thinking about."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dish reflector
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:52:16 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
actually measured it to be?
If you had any idea of what you were talking about,
you would know that the total phase shift is unrelated
to the total delay.
But you're doing all the talking, Cecil - providing profound and
knowledgeable insights as in the above observation that phase shift and
delay are unrelated.

Exceedingly profound. Is there a third, unpublished, cosine parameter
(Suppressed Hypothetical Interval Term) for delay that is not phase
nor position? This must be another one of Cecil's "you are right, but
you are wrong about what you thought you were thinking about."

Right. I suspect it was because Cecil was wrong about what he thought I
was thinking about. Again. Either that, or he was referring to
standing waves of current that 'begin undulating linearly & laterally'
at a 'cosinusoidal reduced amplitude phase'.

73, ac6xg

Dish reflector
 

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 3:29 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

I would like to hear anyones opinion on it.

Everyone can have an opinion... but it takes an engineer with the proper
instruments to have the answer.